You are here

Globe should just admit its hyperlocal experiment is really about ad dollars

Chuck Tanowitz, who lives and blogs in Newton and who does public relations and marketing for a living, considers the Gatehouse-vs-Globe issue, concludes there's less to the Globe's efforts than meet the eye and that what's at issue is really GateHouse's survival under an attack from an organization using its own content against it.

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Comments

If the Newton Tab folks are so wonderfully sophisticated, then they might have realized that this kind of outcome is inevitable when content is placed online.

Sorry kids, but that's how online works.

I'm full of holiday food right now and will write something ever more insightful and wonderful later, but first I need to let my belly settle, from food and the irritation of this constant whining, and locate the world's tiniest virtual violin, and tune it up so I can play a mournful song while responding properly, at length and to annoyance, to Chuck's whining.

Yeah, it's a trap and nobody's figured a way out of it at this point. Nothing at all special about the Globe-Gatehouse melee, except that it's happening in the most introspective, chin-stroking, ponderous corner of the known universe.

I also feel that if someone doesnt want you to use their information, even if somehow it is legal, you shouldnt do it. I always felt that way about politicians using an artists music when the artist comes out and says they should stop using it. Even if the politician has the right to use the music to continue using it is not right.

The internet exists/works/thrives because of linking. That's how it works. There are no walls here. Walls can't be constructed. Attempts at making walls have led to embarrassing failures in every case. There's no mass market walled garden thriving out there.

The Wicked Local properties are also a horrible technological mess (the classifieds have been dead for months, for example).

As I wrote, nobody's figured out a way to make it work. I pretty much hate everything hate-able about the Globe and its worker bees, but they've done nothing wrong here but use the Internet in the way that the Internet works.

To cast this in another light: If WickedLocal is really as wonderful as it thinks it is, then readers would follow a Globe-created link from a Globe online property over to WickedLocal, and not come back.

Frankly, as a publisher, I see more risk in sending people away than in sitting back and collecting referrals (and advertising views). The Globe would seem to have more risk than those sad sacks who are complaining about the free marketing of their product.

The Globe is *welcome* to link to and promote, at no charge to me, ANY of my online material, any time.

"News" has to be re-invented to be profitable in this online era. All these experiments, including the Globe's content-mooching blog-o-matic, will fail. They're not thinking nearly hard enough, not experimenting nearly boldly enough. When they finally get around to it, it will probably be too late cuz they will be out of cash.

As I've said before, I think Boston.com goofed with this, but kudos to them for experimenting.

I wish I could work hard on the big problem, and help Boston.com find a way to sustain good journalism for the next decade. But, even were I invited to, I can't afford to have my income dependent on a newspaper company right now.

It seems reasonable to argue that TAB and other wickedlocal reporters are with it but wicked itself is very poorly structured to make money. Crappy SEO, broken links, inaccurate links, affiliate applications that don't work, link spaghetti, poor anchor text etc.

That said I think the Globe is going too far in co-opting wicked's content and I'm pretty sure NYTCo would C&D me if I ran a similar play on them.

up

Voting is closed. 3

Support Universal Hub

Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.